THE AXIS OF HISTORY AT QUMRAN

MICHAEL E. STONE

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

The present paper presents a series of observations arising from the consideration of which Pseudepigrapha occur at Qumran. The first point made is the existence of what we have called "the priestly-Noachic tradition." This traces the priestly teaching back from the Aaronic priests through Abraham to Noah. Next, Noah's role as a "bridge" over the flood is considered and his consequent transmission of antediluvian teachings. This leads us to broach the issue of the origin of evil and, consequently, the causes of the flood. The sectarians found this in the myths about Enoch, the Watchers, the giants and the consequent events.

This Enochic explanation of the origin of evil contrasts with that which relates it to Adam's sin. Adam apocrypha and legendary developments of the Adam stories are strikingly absent from Qumran, while there are many works associated with the axis from Enoch to Noah. The final part of the present paper discusses, therefore, the implications of the complementary distribution of these two ways of explaining evil. What did the world feel like when evil was attributed to angelic and demonic intervention rather than to human actions?

The Priestly-Noachic Tradition

"The following were the sons of Levi, by their names: Gerson, Kohath, and Merari.... The sons of Kohath by their clans: Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel" (Num. 3:17-19 RSV). Qahat, then, was the second son of Levi and the father of Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron (Exod. 6:18, Num. 3:19, etc.). Thus, Qahat forms a link in the priestly line that descended from Levi, through Amram, to Aaron.

The Aramaic Levi Document was apparently composed in the third century BCE. Seven copies of it have been found at Qumran, supplementing a fragmentary manuscript from the Cairo Geniza and some Greek extracts from Mount Athos. According to Aramaic Levi ##67-68, Qahat is exalted: he was born on the first day of the first month, at the rising of the sun. This is a particularly significant date according to the solar calendar (#68). Some, but not all, scholars have maintained that according to the solar calendar, the day started in the morning. Even if this is not the case, the daily order of sacrifices in the Temple began in the morning. Qahat is born on the morning of the first day of the year. This is a portentous beginning! Aramaic Levi ##66-67 relates the naming of Qahat in the following way: "[And I cal]led his name [Qahat and I sa]w that he would have an assembly of all the people and that he would have the high priesthood for Israel"y[tyzxw (67) thq] hm# yt[)rqw] )tbr )twnhk hwht hl y[dw )m( ]lk t#nk h[wht hl ydl)r[#y lkl ]. This is clearly a midrash on the name Qahat, which the author relates to the expression Mym( thqy wlw in the Blessing of Jacob in Gen. 49:10. The author of Aramaic Levi takes the strange word thqy in Gen. 49:10 to be connected with the name Qahat. He explains the name Qahat by the meaning "assembly." This meaning is attested for the word thqy in Gen. 49:10 by Aquila's translation su&sthma law~n and 4QPatr Bless ] t#nk y#n), as well as by Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 99 (Theodor-Albeck, 1280 and note). Bereshit Rabbah explains thqy as wyl) Mylhqtm Mlw( twmw)# ym "he to whom the nations of the world gather." The influence of Gen. 49:10 on Aramaic Levi #67 extends beyond the meaning of thqy. The explanation continues )m( ]lk "all [the people" which also derives from the word "peoples" Gen. 49:10.

The Athos Greek text of Aramaic Levi #67 differs from the surviving Aramaic manuscripts in a number of readings. One is an additional phrase following the words
h( a)rxierosu&nh h( mega&lh "the great high priesthood" which corresponds to )tbr )twnhk "the high priesthood." This additional phrase is au)to_j kai\ to\ spe&rma au)tou~ e!sontai a)rxh_ basile&wn i9era&teuma tw~| )Israh&l "he and his seed will be an authority of kings, a priesthood for Israel." The expression a)rxh_ basile&wn probably means "authority of kings," though it could mean "beginning of kings." In either case, the phrase indicates that Qahat will have both royal and priestly attributes. It calls him "chief of kings" and i9era&teuma "priesthood," while the preceding phrase attributes to him h( a)rxierosu&nh h( mega&lh "the great high priesthood." His line stands as the a)rxh& both of kings and priests. This is an extraordinary prediction, although its possible Hasmonean reference is precluded by the dating of the oldest Qumran manuscripts of the work.

The combination of royal and priestly language, however, is not unique to Aramaic Levi #67. In a similar vein, TLevi 11:6 gives a name midrash for Qahat: "the first place of majesty and instruction" (o# e)stin a)rxh_ megalei/ou kai\ sumbibasmo&j).1 As in Aramaic Levi, both royal and priestly aspects of Qahat are stressed by this name midrash, for the "instruction" surely is the priestly duty of instruction that is prominent in Deut. 33:8-11. This combination of the royal and the sacerdotal was, of course, highlighted by the very application of Gen. 49:10 to Qahat in Aramaic Levi #67. After all, in Gen. 49:10, the Blessing of Jacob, the Mym( thqy wlw was not pronounced over Levi at all but over Judah, and the rest of Gen. 49:10 has clear royal associations. The whole section reads: yk d( , wylgr Nybm qqxmw hdwhym +b# rwsy )lMym( thqy wlw hl# )by. RSV translates this difficult verse as follows: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and the obedience of the peoples is his." Aramaic Levi applies this verse, which was originally directed to Judah and has unmistakable royal associations, to Qahat who is clearly a link in the line of priestly descent.

The same combination of royal and priestly attributes occurs in another fragment of Aramaic Levi from Cave 1 (1Q21). In that fragment we read:
]twklm Nm )br )twnhk twklm Kyn[b
"your [so]ns, kingdom of the priesthood is greater than the kingdom[." The context of this phrase is lost, but it explicitly refers to a royal dimension, "the kingdom," of the high priesthood and proclaims its superiority over some other kingdom.2 A similar expression occurs in 4QLevia ar, fragment 2, where we read, again in a fragmentary context, Nyklmw Nynhk P) "also priests and kings" and then, in the next line, Nktwklm "your kingdom."3 The passage is Levi's exhortation directed to his children, as the second person plural indicates. Again we observe the same reference to the royal aspect of the priesthood, even though the larger context has perished. Thus Aramaic Levi presents Qahat as a central figure, a father of the high-priestly line, who will incorporate royal attributes in his priestly character. This is a very distinctive conception.

Four fragments of 4Q542 survive, and most scholars speak of 4Q542 as a "farewell address." In fact, strictly speaking, the surviving text only indicates that it is an exhortation. Since the speaker mentions both "Amram my son" and "Levi my father," he is clearly Qahat. Therefore 4Q542 has been styled "Testament of Qahat."4

The first part of the text stresses the transmission of teaching from Abraham through Isaac, Jacob, Levi and Qahat to Amram, as well as an "inheritance" which the addressees received from their fathers and which they are to transmit to further generations.5 In col. ii, this inheritance is specifically said to be "books," apparently books of priestly teaching. In the course of the second column, as well, the speech to "my sons" in general becomes directed specifically towards "Amram my son." So the fragments of Testament of Qahat, then, are concerned with the transmission of priestly teaching. Like similar "genealogies" of apocalyptic teaching, such as 4 Ezra 3:14, 12:35-39, 14. and 2 Enoch 22:11-23, 33:8-12, 47-48, they authenticate and authorize the tradition current at the author's time. Moreover, as in the case of certain pseudepigraphic apocalypses, the Qahat work may not be a creatio ex nihilo, but may reflect crystallization of traditions cultivated in a real social context. Of course, this cannot be demonstrated but the continuity of the tradition over generations can. The transmission of books of priestly teaching is central to the Testament of Qahat but the surviving fragments preserve no hints of the royal dimension of the priesthood. As we will demonstrate, the transmission of teaching is also a major theme of Aramaic Levi which knows both the priestly and the royal contexts and derives it from a Book of Noah.

The Noachic Genealogy

The Book of Jubilees similarly emphasizes the line of descent of teaching from antiquity. Jubilees chiefly stresses transmission from the antediluvian generations (7:38-39, 10:14; 21:10). In Jub. 21:10, moreover, Abraham concludes a catalogue of detailed sacrificial halachot that he has given Isaac by saying, "Because thus I have found written in the books of my forefathers and in the words of Enoch and in the words of Noah." Jubilees' introduction of Enoch into the teaching's genealogy is notable and the mention of Noah evokes Aramaic Levi, a work discussed below. Even more significant than the introduction of Enoch is the priestly character of the transmitted teaching, thus strikingly resembling the Testament of Qahat and, as we shall see, Aramaic Levi.

Let us consider for a moment this line of descent and transmission which is set forth in 4QTestQahat and Jubilees 21. Except for the single manuscript from Cave 4, no other traces of the Testament of Qahat have been found at Qumran or elsewhere. Nonetheless, Testament of Qahat stresses a cardinal point, the descent of priestly teaching from Abraham and eventually, according to Aramaic Levi, from Noah. The same idea is to be found in works that circulated more widely. One of the main issues in Aramaic Levi is the investiture of Levi as priest and the transmission to him of the priestly teaching about the sacrificial cult. Levi, having been invested and anointed, is taught by Isaac (##12-13): yr)# )ym# y)rml Nwyl( l)l Nyhk )n) yd (dy ydkwtwnhk Nyd yty )pl)lw hdqpl) "When he learned (realized?) that I was priest of the Most High God, of the Lord of Heaven, he began to instruct and to teach me the law of priesthood."

Levi's lessons are very substantial for they continue from #14 to #57. They deal in some detail with the preparation of the sacrifices, the wood of the altar and the elements that constitute each offering - the salt, the meal and so forth. At the end of Isaac's instruction about sacrificial cult we read, in text surviving only in Greek, ou#twj ga&r moi e0netei/lato o( path_r mou )Abraa&m, o#ti ou#twj eu[ren e)n th~| grafh~| th~j bi/blou tou~ Nw~e peri\ tou~ ai3matoj. "For thus my father Abraham instructed me, for thus he found in the writing of the Book of Noah6 peri\ tou~ ai3matoj" (#57). The last phrase is ambiguous. 7 The title of the book might have been "The Book of Noah Concerning the Blood." It could have borne this name because God first gave the commandment about the blood to Noah, which will be discussed below. On the other hand, the ambiguous Greek might be translated "for thus he found concerning the blood in the writing of the Book of Noah." The words "concerning the blood" could, in this case, refer back to the subject of the instructions that had just been given.

In either case, the teaching about sacrifices comes from ancient times and is connected with Noah both in Jubilees 21 and in Aramaic Levi #57. One is moved to ask why it is thus related to Noah. Considering that Levi was the eponymous ancestor of the priests, the attribution of the tradition of priestly learning and instruction to him should have sufficed to guarantee its authenticity. If Levi were not enough, then the connection to Abraham, the originator of belief in one God and "father of all believers," should have been adequate. Why was Noah introduced?

The writers of the three sequential Pseudepigrapha found in the Qumran caves and attributed to the ancestors of the Levites, viz., Aramaic Levi, Testament of Qahat and Visions of Amram,8 obviously found it very important that the priestly tradition they enfolded be rooted in remote antiquity.9 The specific connection of this tradition with Noah might be explained by the following. According to Gen. 8:20 Noah offers the first animal sacrifice. Gen. 9:4, in the following pericope, relates how he received the commandment about the blood.10 Thus, Noah's connection to the sacrificial cult and to instructions concerning it was not by chance. The question remains, of course, whether a "Book of Noah (concerning the Blood)" actually existed, or whether Aramaic Levi invented this title to enhance the authority of the priestly tradition it was promoting.

The name "Book of Noah concerning the Blood" (if indeed this is the way it is to be parsed) fits in with a number of other pieces of evidence which relate to Noah and to a Book or Books of Noah:

a) One Hebrew scroll from Cave 1 at Qumran (1Q19) is known as "Book of Noah." Although this is a modern title, it was assigned because some fragments of 1Q19 do resemble parts of 1 Enoch that deal with Noah or that have been attributed by scholars to a Book of Noah.11 1 Enoch, however, was composed in Aramaic, while 1Q19 was written in Hebrew. Presumably, one language or the other must have been original to the Book of Noah, perhaps Aramaic. Indeed, we cannot actually determine whether 1Q19 was a "Book of Noah" or another work embodying Noachic material. Certain fragments of 1Q19 exhibit a striking relationship with Noachic material but a number of other fragments of this scroll bear no evident relationship to anything known to us connected with Noah.

b) The Genesis Apocryphon devotes 15 columns to Noah. First, in cols. 2-5, it deals with Noah's birth from the viewpoint of his father Lamech. Next, col. 5, line 29, contains the expression "Book of the Words of Noah." There follows a first person narrative set in Noah's mouth and apparently attributed to the "Book of the Words of Noah" which continues to col. 17.12 It might be an extract from or a summary of a Book of Noah, though this can only be determined after the full analysis of the rest of the fragments and perhaps not even then.13

c) Jub. 10:1-14 relates an angelic revelation to Noah about illness and demons, and concludes, "And Noah wrote down everything in a book, as we instructed him ... [a]nd he gave everything he had written to Shem, his eldest son" (10:13-14). The demonological material is connected with Noah because of the idea that the giants, offspring of the Watchers and the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1 and 1 Enoch 6), were drowned in the flood and their spirits became demons. On literary grounds Jubilees 10:1-14 seems to be a discrete unit of text. Did it come from a Book of Noah?14

d) Scholars have attributed a number of other parts of 1 Enoch and Jubilees, with greater or lesser plausibility, to a Noachic source. We consider the following to be the strongest candidates: 1 Enoch 60, 65-69:25; 106-107.15 An extensive development of Noachic traditions is to be observed in 2 Enoch 71-72 which rewrites the story of Noah's birth, transferring the special traditions to Melkizedek. This is, however, not in itself evidence for a literary work attributed to Noah.16

From these hints and references we can speculate with some plausibility that a Book or Books of Noah may have existed which dealt at least with three topics: (1) the birth of Noah ("Book of the Words of Noah"); (2) the sacrificial instructions ("Book of Noah Concerning the Blood"); and (3) medicine and demonology ("Book of Noah"). Whether these three topics were included in a single writing or in a number of different compositions cannot be determined.17 What is significant for the present discussion is that Noah is singled out as the source of teachings about sacrifice and about medicine. It might be remarked that Jubilees 21:10 alone relates these traditions as far back as Enoch, rather than "just" to Noah. In other words, it has assimilated priestly teaching to other esoteric traditions know to it. 18 Thus, from our present perspective, Jubilees may have transferred the genealogy of other esoteric traditions to the priestly. Very little reason can be discerned to tie Enoch to the revelation of sacrificial halachot.

Later Jewish literature lays a similar stress on the transmission of special knowledge through the "Book of Noah." Sefer )Asaf ha-Rofe "The Book of Asaph the Physician," a Jewish medieval medical work commences: "This is the book of remedies which ancient sages copied from the book of Shem b. Noah, which was transmitted to Noah on Mount Lubar, one of the mountains of Ararat, after the Flood." This material is drawn from the tenth chapter of Jubilees which we mentioned above and is, of course, also attributed to Noah in Jubilees. It has not yet been determined how this material reached the medieval author but its origin is indubitable.

Another such document is the somewhat older Sefer ha-Razim "Book of Mysteries," a Jewish magical book composed during the first millennium.19 Its superscription traces the transmission of esoteric knowledge which originates with Adam and is transmitted by Noah. Noah's connection with the antediluvian esoteric knowledge fits with his role as a "bridge" over the rupture of the flood.20

Noah is the object of very substantial concern and he plays a special role as the originator of sacrificial instruction. Noah is a second Adam and the founder of postdiluvian humanity. Conjunctions and disjunctions with the antediluvian period are stressed - the continuity of the tradition, the new order of the world and the shortened lives, as well as the origins of the demons from the giants. The sudden clustering of works around Noah indicates that he was seen as a pivotal figure in the history of humanity, as both an end and a beginning.

In short, we find three works at Qumran connected with three priestly descendants, the first and oldest of which with Levi. Aramaic Levi attributes its priestly teaching to Noah, though it is not certain that a Book of Noah existed which contained this teaching. In any case, the Noah traditions are ancient. This teaching relates above all to the sacrificial cult, the special prerogative of the priests and is rooted in Noah as the initiator of sacrificial cult. Therefore, in effect, this procedure incorporates Noah into the priestly genealogy. Consequently, the function of the Amram, Qahat and Levi works is to undergird the priestly teaching. The introduction of Noah draws attention to his pivotal role as a bridge over the Flood. He is a second Adam for the new, postdiluvian world order.21

The Priestly-Noah Tradition in the Qumran Library

The character of the pseudepigraphic books found at Qumran does not differ greatly from that of the Pseudepigrapha transmitted by the various Christian Churches. As distinct from the sectarian books proper, which are new both in genre and in content, the Qumran finds of Pseudepigrapha are important precisely because they link up with the material transmitted through other channels and enrich known literary types. In a sense, this reasoning is circular. Qumran Pseudepigrapha contribute "more of the same," precisely because they are defined by their being "much the same" as the Pseudepigrapha transmitted in other channels.22 Their significance lies in the very substantial addition they make to our knowledge about Judaism in that ancient period.

There are other genres, some allied with those found in the Pseudepigrapha and others rather different from them, which also enrich our knowledge of Jewish Pseudepigrapha in the period of the Second Temple. These exhortations and parabiblical books, testimony books, pesharim, hymns, prayers and commentaries all cast light on the Pseudepigrapha. By setting the new pseudepigrahic writings in this double context, that of known Pseudepigrapha and that of other contemporary writings, many new insights are gained. As books, however, the Pseudepigrapha from Qumran are Pseudepigrapha (this is ex definitione the case). They are, moreover, exceedingly important.

In studying the Qumran library one is struck by differences in the distribution and frequency of occurrence of various books. Because many documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls have not yet been published, many others are extremely fragmentary, and some have not survived at all, it is difficult to make absolutely certain statements about what existed and what didn't. Some indications may be gained, however. Neither Baruch nor Ezra, both of whom formed lodestones for many pseudepigraphical writings, seems to have played a major role in the manuscripts discovered in the Judean Desert. Judith is not there, nor Maccabees (of course!); of the twelve sons of Jacob, we have material definitely associated only with Levi and Naphtali, and those texts are not identical by any means with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.23

There seem to have been a number of pseudo-Mosaic writings at Qumran but there is no evidence of the Assumption or Testament of Moses.24 There are also, it seems, no apocrypha of Job (a Targum exists) or Psalms of Solomon. We would not expect to find many fragments of Jewish works composed in Greek, and this is indeed the case.5
25 Although some Solomon traditions, some Daniel ones, and some others are found, the range of previously known Pseudepigrapha preserved at Qumran is rather limited, particularly when viewed from the perspective of the Pseudepigrapha in general.26

We have discussed the Pseudepigrapha from Qumran which relate the priestly teaching to Noah, observing Noah's role as "bridge" between the ante- and postdiluvian worlds. Consequently, it is intriguing to ask about Qumran pseudepigrapha bearing on the antediluvian and diluvian periods. Which works occur in many copies and which in few? How does this pattern of distribution relate to the sectarian understanding of history?

The combination of sources we presented above, in which we traced the priestly traditions from Noah down to Aaron, would have been impossible without the Qumran finds. The new manuscripts have made available to us many completely unknown works, or works known previously by title alone. As far as the Pseudepigrapha are concerned, Qumran enriches our knowledge of the texts and provides a great quantity of new data. Once this data is integrated with what we already know, it will enable us to present a more textured and fuller picture of the Judaism of the Second Temple period as expressed in the Pseudepigrapha.

Yet I find myself struck by the fact that the Pseudepigrapha and the pseudepigraphic traditions mentioned above - and these are among the most prominent at Qumran - do not include a series of books found among the received Pseudepigrapha. Except for the texts studied by J. M. Baumgarten (4Q265) and E. G. Chazon (see below), few texts deal with Adam. Even 4Q265 is halachic and the Adam material in it is close to Jubilees. "Exposition on the Patriarchs" (4Q464) contains some traditions about creation, but none about Adam.27 Chazon has drawn attention to traditions about the creation and fall of Adam in three apparently non-sectarian works, Dibre Hamme'orot, Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus, and Sapiental Work A.28 Although these works share some exegetical tradition, they have no legendary expansions and variations of the biblical narrative such as may be observed in the primary Adam books. Their most distinctive tradition is the drawing together of the Adam and Flood narratives by the use of terminology.29 Viewed from the perspective of the primary Adam books, however, the material analyzed by Chazon is remarkable for its lack of legendary expansion and reworking.30 Legendary Adam texts seem to be rare or non-existent.31 As we shall see below, this is no small matter, but indeed very significant.

In contrast to this situation, the frequency of occurrence of those works which were preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls is very striking. The incident of the Watchers and the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1 ff.), and the Enochic traditions associated with it, seem to have been very important to the sect. The number of copies of 1 Enoch (6), of Jubilees (15) and of the Book of the Giants (8) is remarkable. The Noachic texts, too, belong to this circle of writings. As we observed, even if Morgenstern is correct, the amount of Noah material in the Genesis Apocryphon is disproportionate to the subjects of the other parts of that work. Further Noah writings have also been found at Qumran. The numerous copies of these Pseudepigrapha and the absence of developed Adam traditions are a signal witness to the sect's concentration on the period from Enoch to Noah. This must necessarily have given their understanding of biblical history a particular configuration. The Watchers begat the giants. The giants drowned in the Flood and their spirits survived. After the Flood, these spirits formed the demonic order and they were reduced by God's grace to one tenth of their original number. These traditions combine to create a specific understanding of the state of the world. The evil that precipitated the Flood stems from angelic sin and not from human disobedience. In the postdiluvian world, this evil persists, though in an attenuated form (cf. Jubilees 10). It is perpetrated and perpetuated by the demons.

This view of the world emerges from the reading of these Pseudepigrapha together and combining elements in them. We must observe, moreover, that most of these writings antedate the foundation of the Qumran sect.32 They probably stemmed from groups or tendencies in third century Judaism analogous with those from which the Qumran sect itself derived. Their presence at Qumran, some in an astounding number of copies, and the fact that they were quoted in the sectarian writings proper, shows how important they were to the sect.33 Any assessment of the Qumran sect's ideas must take into account that the sectarians viewed this period of the past as pivotal. They accepted and must have been profoundly influenced by the interpretation of it to be found in these Pseudepigrapha. The Pseudepigrapha dedicated to the Enoch to Noah axis provided an explanation of how the world reached its present state.34

In such a context, the prevalence of Enoch, Giants and Noah texts in the Qumran library and the absence of legendary Adam material takes on a redoubled significance. The Adam and Eve stories, as used, for example, in the Books of Adam and Eve, are designed to explain death, illness and the loss of the paradisiacal state. These are the result of the curses laid upon the protoplasts. These aspects of the human state are accounted for at Qumran by the Enoch-Noah pseudepigrapha.

Let us consider this point further. There is little literature at Qumran dealing with Adam and Eve and, in particular, with the issues of their sin and its consequences that were to become so central. Paul, even if we do not follow Augustine's reading of him, knew and developed views in which Adam's sin had dire consequences for the history of humanity - death, illness and all the curses of Gen. 3:16-19 at the very least. Yet this aspect of the Adam traditions is not at all prominent in the Qumran texts. Jub. 3:23-29 deals with the curses of the protoplasts in terms close to those of Genesis, not even seeing death as a result of their sin, cf. also Ben Sira 17:1-10.35

Indeed, words like 4 Ezra's about the "evil seed" (4 Ezra 4:30-32, cf. 3:20-22) are quite rare in ancient Jewish literature outside Paul and they may represent a tradition which Paul developed but to which few witnesses survive.36 Both Paul and 4 Ezra relate the present state of the world to Adam and to the consequences of his sin.37 We cannot deal here with the question of whether the sin is considered Adam's, Adam and Eve's or whether there is a tendency to exculpate Adam. That raises a different set of issues. It is nonetheless true that these ideas do not play a role at Qumran in the slightest measure commensurate with that played by the Pseudepigrapha located on the axis running from Enoch to Noah.38

We may speculate about what happens when the parlous state of the world is attributed to angelic disobedience for which humans cannot be held responsible. This can be contrasted with a view that attributes it to the disobedience of the father of humanity. These are two different readings of Genesis and they must have produced very different attitudes in those who accepted them.

The intensive use at Qumran of these (largely) pre-Qumran documents shows that the sect stressed the Enoch-Noah axis. We cannot yet reply fully to the question of how this relates to the dual determinism of the sect which explains the state of the world by the nature of its genesis. A few remarks, however, may be in order. The sect preserved, cultivated and cherished the Enochic texts, Jubilees, Book of the Giants, Aramaic Levi, Qahat and Amram. This shows that it favored one particular explanation of the situation of the world. It is not an explanation that necessarily contradicts the approach, say, of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in 1QS cols. 3-4, but it refers to the origins of evil and degeneration of the world in another set of terms, drawn from the re-mythologized world of the Pseudepigrapha. In this perspective, the axis from Enoch to the Flood and Noah, from the fall of the Watchers to the re-seeding of the earth by Noah, is the crucial axis for the creation of the present world state. The actions preceding, indeed precipitating, the Flood and the subsequent re-creation are mythical and play the role that Adam and Eve's actions did in other contexts.

A second and apparently allied focus of sectarian interest seems to have been the levitical priesthood. This is evidenced not only by Aramaic Levi Document but also by the new apocrypha of Amram and of Qahat and by 4Q451.39 The attitudes of the sect towards the priesthood, as reflected in their own legal codes, are well known. Yet, we have shown above that the strong interest in and exaltation of the levitical line antedated the foundation of the sect. I have addressed myself elsewhere to differing attitudes to the priestly role in documents reflecting third century Judaism.40 Both in the Aramaic Levi Document and in Jubilees this levitical concern is related back to Noah: Abraham and Isaac learned the laws of sacrifice from the Book of Noah and passed them on to Levi. The claims of Aramaic Levi Document about the levitical priesthood are even more far-reaching than those of the Qumran sectarian documents proper. At this point, once more, the Pseudepigrapha cultivated at Qumran provide an underpinning for dominant aspects of sectarian ideas. They illuminate the type of Jewish movements from which the Qumran sectarians might have derived. They provide us not only with information about Qumran origins, but also about the obscure history of Judaism in the third century.

Let us accept, for the moment, the schematic presentation of the remythologized view of history proposed above. If it reflects some sort of reality, then evil, suffering, fruitlessness of the earth, illness and consequentially death are the results of the fall of the angels and all that stemmed from it. This is made abundantly clear in Jubilees 10, as far as illness and other afflictions are concerned, and in more general terms in the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 6-11:1, 69:4-13). It is not human actions, Adam and Eve's disobedience, that generated the state of the world; it was the angels' actions and their consequences. This starkly contrasts with the usual understanding of the Adam and Eve story.41 According to it, whether the evil heart is inherited or not, the state of the world is caused by Adam and Eve's transgression.

One might then raise a number of subsequent speculations. One is that the deliberate tying of the sacrificial cult in particular back to Noah does not necessarily make it antediluvian. The commandments in Genesis 8 and 9 about sacrifice indicate that sacrifice is part of the world-order established after the flood.42 If this is so, then the tradition we have traced differs from that of Sefer ha-Razim, which is ultimately attributed to Adam. It also differs equally from traditions such as those in 2 Enoch 69-72 or the later Cave of Treasures in which the high priesthood is traced back ultimately to Adam. Both the Flood and Noah's role in establishing the new world order were very important. Perhaps his wife's name, 'Em Zara' "mother of seed,"43 indicates something of the role of new creator and father of humankind which Noah and his wife played. Like Deucalion and Phyrra they re-seeded the earth.

Of course, these observations far from exhaust the role and importance of the Enochic material at Qumran. I must leave it to others to describe in detail how the Enochic material functioned there. However, it must be remarked that through the Enochic material (which includes Giants) we can explain the fall of the angels, the origins of the demons and their plagues, as well as the Flood and the destruction of the earth. The present world order is the postdiluvian state. Into that state, among other things, Noah introduced sacrifice. Noah was thus father of humans, recipient of information to protect humans against the demons and originator of the sacrificial cult.

The displacement of the true cult from Jerusalem was most likely a catalytic factor for the wing of Judaism to which the sect belonged. That wing of Judaism, however, was older than the sect proper and preceded the events leading up to the expulsion of the Oniad priests (ca. 175 BCE) and the decrees of Antiochus IV (167 BCE). The alienation from the Jerusalem Temple sprang from other, yet unrevealed, sources in the mist-enshrouded third century. But it was this alienation that can explain both the stress on the Noachic fount of sacrificial law and practice and the importance of the genealogy of the priestly teaching.

Much remains to be done and study must precede further talk. The integration of the texts newly discovered at Qumran with those which have been known for centuries will continue to produce rich fruit as we meditate upon it.

NOTES

1 On this translation, see H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: a Commentary (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 8; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985) 163. M. de Jonge discusses the relationship between Aramaic Levi and Greek Testament of Levi in "The Testament of Levi and 'Aramaic Levi'," RevQ 13 (1988) 376-85 and in his paper in the present volume. [Back to text]

2 The use of twklm "kingdom" leads one to think that this small fragment may have preceded the material in Bodleian col. a. That passage compares a number of contrasting "kingdoms." More cannot be added about the context than that. [Back to text]

3 Given the fragmentary context, no reconstruction can be suggested. [Back to text]

4 The first full edition of the manuscript is by E. Puech, "Le testament de Qahat en araméen de la Grotte 4 (4QTQah)," RevQ 15 (1988) 23-54. [Back to text]

5 It should be observed that 4QPseudo-Danielc contains two fragmentary lists, one of high priests and the other of kings. The high priestly list (fragment 1) starts with Levi (or earlier, the line is broken) and continues down to Jonathan and Simeon the Hasmoneans. The royal list follows in the same fragment, but it is a torso. A small fragment of 4QPseudo-Daniela is apparently part of the same list (fragment 28). These lists are discussed by J. J. Collins and P. W. Flint in DJD 22.157-58 and the texts are published in the same volume. See also J. J. Collins, "Pseudo-Daniel Revisited," RevQ 17 (1996) 111-35, especially 112. The priestly list reflects a concern for priestly genealogy analogous to, but different from, that discussed here. Moreover, the conjunction of the priestly and royal names, with the priestly preceding, is intriguing in light of the evidence adduced by us. [Back to text]

6 In a recently deciphered fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon the words xn ylm btk are to be found. See R. C. Steiner, "The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah on a Fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon: New Light on a 'Lost' Work," DSD 2.1 (1995) 66-71. For recent discussions of the Book of Noah, see F. García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 9; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992) 1-44; M. E. Stone, "Noah, Books of," Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (forthcoming). [Back to text]

8 The initial publication of some Amram fragments of this work is J. T. Milik, "4Q Visions de 'Amram et une citation d'Origène," RB 79 (1972) 77-97. [Back to text]

9 We are not in a position at the moment to trace the exact relationship between these three works, except to say that Aramaic Levi is clearly the oldest. Whether the Amram and Qahat works were sectarian compositions or not remains unclear. Their Aramaic language weighs against it but is not completely decisive. [Back to text]

10 With the exception of Abel's offering in Gen. 4:4, which has no continuation in the subsequent antediluvian generations. [Back to text]

11 Fragments 2-3 deal with Noah's birth (parallel to 1 Enoch 106-107), while fragment 1 seems to have connections with the flood story and thus, perhaps, with 1 Enoch 8:4-9:4. The remaining fragments of 1Q19, however, do not seem to have any recognizable relationship to material connected with Noah and Enoch. [Back to text]

12 Steiner, "The Heading of the Book of the Words of Noah," 66-71. [Back to text]

13 The disproportion between the Noah material and the other parts of the Genesis Apocryphon may be less striking if M. Morgenstern's view of the length of the scroll is accepted. See: M. Morgenstern, "A New Clue to the Original Length of the Genesis Apocryphon," JJS 67.2 (1996) 345-47. Further Noachic fragments of the Genesis Apocryphon have been published by J. C. Greenfield and E. Qimron, "The Genesis Apocryphon Col. XII," Abr-Nahrain Supplement 3 (1992) 70-77; M. Morgenstern, E. Qimron and D. Sivan, "The Hitherto Unpublished Columns of the Genesis Apocryphon," Abr-Nahrain 33 (1995) 30-52. [Back to text]

14 "The Words of Noah" are also mentioned in Jub. 21:10 which has been discussed above. [Back to text]

15 Noachic teaching is transmitted in Jub. 7:20-39 and that is dependent in some fashion on 1 Enoch 6-11:1. [Back to text]

16 An Aramaic text entitled 4QElect of God (4Q534) contains some physiognomic details, followed by information about the life of its hero. He will acquire wisdom with the knowledge of three books. Because of apparent references to the flood in col. ii, it has often been thought to be a horoscope of Noah. The matter cannot be regarded as settled. One of the most recent contributions to this debate is García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 1-44. He surveys the evidence for the existence of a Book of Noah and the interpretation of 4QElect of God.[Back to text]

17 Indeed, it is quite possible that some or all of these topics were not part of a discrete Book of Noah but were included in a broader or differently focused retelling(s) of the Genesis stories. [Back to text]

18 E. G. Chazon remarks, "Perhaps the way 4Q265 (and the similar material in Jubilees) incorporates purity material into the Eden story (see below) could be linked to the attribution of priestly tradition to Adam." She has been kind enough to read this paper and has made this and a number of other pertinent observations. [Back to text]

19 For an English translation see M. Morgan, Sepher Ha-Razim: The Book of Mysteries (Pseudepigrapha Series 11; SBL Texts and Translations 25; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983). [Back to text]

20 Other such "bridges" existed, such as the antediluvian stelae discovered after the flood; we find this legend in a range of forms and sources, from Jubilees through Josephus and on into Jewish and Christian apocrypha. See M. E. Stone, Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Adam and Eve (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 12; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996) 151 and 198. The stelae tradition is also to be found in J. Malalas, Chronographia (ed. L. Dindorf; Bonn, 1831) 6, lines 7-18 (Anonymi Chronologia). [Back to text]

21 This understanding of Noah is prominent in 4 Ezra 3. Adam and Noah themes are drawn together in the Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus and Dibre Hamme'orot, col. 1: see E. G. Chazon, "The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls," in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: Reworked versions of papers read at a symposium held in May 1995 in Jerusalem (eds. J. Frishman and L. Van Rompey; Leuven: Peeters Press, 1997) 13-24. [Back to text]

22 We are, of course, conscious of the problems inherent in the term "Pseudepigrapha" and the debates surrounding its denotation. See M. E. Stone, "Categorization and Classification of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha," Abr-Nahrain 24 (1986) 167-177; M. E. Stone and R. A. Kraft, reviews of J. H. Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha in RSR 14.2 (1988) 111ff. [Back to text]

23 The importance of this fact for the ongoing debate over the Jewish or Christian character of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is considerable. J. T. Milik has claimed to have found fragments of Judah and Joseph texts as well, but this has been challenged. See H. W. Hollander and M. de Jonge, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 17, 29. [Back to text]

24 See the long note by John Strugnell in DJD 19.131-36; see also idem. "Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376 and Similar Works," in Archeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (ed. L. H. Schiffman; JSP Supplement 8; JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2; Sheffield; JSOT Press, 1990) 221-56. Some observations on Strugnell's view were made by M. Morgenstern, "Language and Literature in the Second Temple Period," JJS 47.3 (1997) 141-42. On the Testament of Moses, see most recently J. Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 10; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993). [Back to text]

25 In Cave 7 a number of Greek manuscripts have been discovered including what are evidently Greek fragments of Enoch and of Epistle of Jeremiah. [Back to text]

26 A more detailed discussion of the range of Pseudepigrapha at Qumran and their relationship to the pseudepigrapha in general is to be found in the writer's paper: "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha," DSD 3.3 (1996) 270-96. There the Pseudo-Ezekiel works, a major corpus at Qumran, are discussed and the relevant bibliography is given. [Back to text]

29 Chazon justly comments, "In both Dibre Hamme'orot and Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus this [i.e., the drawing together of the Adam and Flood narratives] highlights the sin-punishment cycle and human responsibility for sin. So, this tradition did exists at Qumran alongside the prevalent Enoch-Watchers-Noah axis." This view, like Dibre Hamme'orot itself, is probably non-sectarian and does not play a substantial role in the sectarian writings proper. [Back to text]

30 In her paper Esther Chazon compares the three texts she selects with two other accounts of the creation and fall of Adam current at Qumran, viz. Ben Sira 17:1-10 and Jubilees 2-4; see "Creation and Fall of Adam," 19-21. [Back to text]

31 The exact character of the fragment 4Q500, originally published by Baillet (DJD 7.78) and identified by Baumgarten as referring to Eden as God's garden, is not really clear. According to his interpretation, this text links the Garden of Eden with the Temple. See J. M. Baumgarten, "4Q500 and the Ancient Conception of the Lord's Vineyard," JJS 40 (1989) 1-6. 4Q422 is a Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus, published by Elgvin and Tov in DJD 13.417-41. Its first fragment (ibid., 421) contains text from Genesis 2, but seems to have no apocryphal narrative or legendary elements. Vermes' survey of Genesis 1-3 in Hebrew and Aramaic literature of the age does not add any information to the above, as far as legendary materials are concerned; see G. Vermes, "Genesis 1-3 in Post-Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic Literature before the Mishnah," JJS 43 (1992) 221-25. Nothing substantial is contributed to the search for legendary Adam texts by J. R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism. From Sirach to 2 Baruch (JSP Supplement 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), although he casts considerable light on the figure of Adam. [Back to text]

32 The status of the Qahat and Amram works remains unclear. Chazon also noted that the three documents she studied are non-sectarian. [Back to text]

33 This point was tellingly made about the Jubilees manuscripts by J. C. VanderKam, "The Jubilees Fragments from Qumran Cave 4," in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March 1991 (ed. J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner; Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 11; Madrid: Complutense; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992) 2. 635-48. On citations see J. C. Greenfield, "The Words of Levi Son of Jacob in Damascus Document 4.15-19," RevQ 13 (1988) 319-22. Note also J. C. VanderKam, "4Q228: Text with a Citation of Jubilees," in DJD 13.177-85. The character of 4Q228 remains unclear.[Back to text]

34 Legendary Adam material is to be found in Jubilees, of course, which follows the text of Genesis. This merely makes its absence from the other Qumran documents the more striking. [Back to text]

37 This is so, even in other texts in which the propensity to sin is not considered to be innate. [Back to text]

38 The paucity of Adam texts from Qumran, moreover, does not mean that the Dead Sea Sect was not interested in how the world got to be the way it is. That issue lies, of course, at the basis of the dual determinism which formed part of the conceptual undergirding of the sect's Weltanschauung. [Back to text]

42 The story of Abel's sacrifice, Gen. 4:4, just says, "And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering." Abel's action in v. 3 is described as )ybh "brought." On the other hand, according to Gen. 8:20, Noah builds an alter and offers whole burnt offerings twl( l(yw. [Back to text]

43 See discussion in Stone, Adam and Eve, 91 and 165. The name appears, as has recently been made public, in newly deciphered text from the Genesis Apocryphon. [Back to text]